Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Injin

Forget Entrepreneurs, Only Banks Can Create Wealth

Recommended Posts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/02/only-banks-can-create-wealth

Entrepreneurs, it has been said so many times over the past 30 years, create wealth. Right this minute, the foolish government is sitting around, waiting with bated breath, for glamorous entrepreneurs to get on with doing just that. But there are no signs that a great boom in business ingenuity is on its way.

So why are entrepreneurs being so shy? Don't they want to create wealth? They probably do. But the fact is this: the entire entrepreneurs-create-wealth thing is a fallacy, and the government is wrong to place its faith in it. Entrepreneurs don't create wealth. Banks create wealth, only banks. If you wonder why politicians seem so powerless to "rein them in", then wonder no more. It is for this simple reason: banks have a monopoly on wealth creation.

Banks, it is true, need entrepreneurs to provide the most dynamic links to the real economy in the real world. Banks could sit in front of computer screens creating electronic money all day and all night if they liked (and they do like. They did exactly this during the last "boom"). But without a solid outlet into transactional reality (such as an invention, or the discovery of a natural asset, or even, for a time, an unsolid one, such as a housing bubble), their electronic money is worthless, figures on a flickering screen, no more meaningful than if you or I opened a text file, typed in some gargantuan number, shoved a pound-sign in front of it, and said: "This is mine." The velveteen rabbit, in the eponymous children's story by Margery Williams, needs love to make it "real". In a similar sort of way, the banks need borrowers to make their money "real".

more lols at the link....

crack-pipe.jpg

Some of the comments are brilliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, the banks were the richest bankrupts in the World in 2007.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear, so no one here understands the intention of the article either...

Is "tongue in cheek", not a sentiment familiar to Brits?

may well be - it is hard to tell

but then again thye torygraph has its fair share of dodgily written blogs too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article is probably spot on as it'll be written from the point of view of UK bank boardrooms etc and UK politicians.

For most of the rest of the UK people it's debt rubbish.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear, so no one here understands the intention of the article either...

Is "tongue in cheek", not a sentiment familiar to Brits?

It's either badly written to the point of being unnoticable satire or terrible economics.

Either way, it isn't the reader who is at fault.

Edited by Injin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's either badly written to the point of being unnoticable satire or terrible economics.

Either way, it isn't the reader who is at fault.

The last quoted paragraph seemed to be clearly saying that it's all illusionary and not the banks actually doing anything at all useful, so I read it as satire, or a comment on how ridiculously the people with real resources are tied by the ones with make-believe ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's either badly written to the point of being unnoticable satire or terrible economics.

Either way, it isn't the reader who is at fault.

Seems to me it's only unnoticable if you didn't notice it. Which some of us did...smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me it's only unnoticable if you didn't notice it. Which some of us did...smile.gif

Either way, it's the writer at fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way, it's the writer at fault.

Seems perfectly clear to me:

Banks could sit in front of computer screens creating electronic money all day and all night if they liked (and they do like. They did exactly this during the last "boom"). But without a solid outlet into transactional reality (such as an invention, or the discovery of a natural asset, or even, for a time, an unsolid one, such as a housing bubble), their electronic money is worthless, figures on a flickering screen, no more meaningful than if you or I opened a text file, typed in some gargantuan number, shoved a pound-sign in front of it, and said: "This is mine."

She appears to be saying "money does not exist": but then that would be absurd, wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either way, it's the writer at fault.

It's her fault you didn't understand the meaning. And here I was under the impression that as an individual you took responsibility for your actions (or in this case perception). Why blame someone else for how you interpret something? Not very "ruggedly individual" of you.

I find no fault with this article, in fact I thought it was pretty clear and correct.

But then not everyone perceives what someone writes in the EXACT same way. But as an individual I understand this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's her fault you didn't understand the meaning. And here I was under the impression that as an individual you took responsibility for your actions (or in this case perception). Why blame someone else for how you interpret something? Not very "ruggedly individual" of you.

Err no. all the weight of communication is on the person who writes. if you want to make something clear to me, it's all your job.

I find no fault with this article, in fact I thought it was pretty clear and correct.

But then not everyone perceives what someone writes in the EXACT same way. But as an individual I understand this.

Going off the comments section, it isn't just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are those who lead, those who follow, and those who get out of the way.

And those with nothing new to say, who sit and mouth, bland cliche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For as long as you are not allowed to see something, you have no choice but to overlook it, to misunderstand it, to protect yourself against it in one way or another. But if you have already perceived it for yourself, then you don't need me to tell you about it. - Alice Miller

;):D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For as long as you are not allowed to see something, you have no choice but to overlook it, to misunderstand it, to protect yourself against it in one way or another. But if you have already perceived it for yourself, then you don't need me to tell you about it. - Alice Miller

;):D

I also quoted you, but you missed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took the article as making a valid point about how we've abandoned the idea of wealth by making things and entered the fantasy world that money can be made from money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's her fault you didn't understand the meaning. And here I was under the impression that as an individual you took responsibility for your actions (or in this case perception). Why blame someone else for how you interpret something? Not very "ruggedly individual" of you.

I find no fault with this article, in fact I thought it was pretty clear and correct.

But then not everyone perceives what someone writes in the EXACT same way. But as an individual I understand this.

It's actually very difficult to tell with the Guardian

For instance when they said vote Lib Dem in order to elect a 'progressive alliance' I took them at face value - but it turns out they were taking the p*ss.

Then when they said vote for Obama because he'll be completely different to George Bush and close Guantanamo Bay I thought they were taking the p*ss but apparently they really believed this would happen.

To be perfectly honest, I never really understand what the Guardian are on about because I am not an inhabitant of the parallel universe their journalists and columnists seem to live in.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Injin but I agree, it's a satire and the problem is not the writer but that the world in which we now find ourselves makes her apparent opinion so credible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Injin but I agree, it's a satire and the problem is not the writer but that the world in which we now find ourselves makes her apparent opinion so credible.

I haven't read the article - but I watch the BBC and Sky paper reviews most eveinings and whenever they have a journalist from the Guardian commenting it must be 100% satire

because if they are actually serious then god help us.

Perhaps they are trying a new tack in an attempt to increase their readership to double figures.

:blink:

Edited by Game_Over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear, so no one here understands the intention of the article either...

Is "tongue in cheek", not a sentiment familiar to Brits?

It is not "tongue in cheek". She does believe this, below (as some here do as well).

Banks could sit in front of computer screens creating electronic money all day and all night if they liked (and they do like. They did exactly this during the last "boom").

Whilst in the real world this is what happens: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=158901&view=findpost&p=2919869

.

Edited by Tired of Waiting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my little brain interpreted it as satire -

because if they are actually serious then god help us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my little brain interpreted it as satire -

What about telling us to vote Lib Dem

Or telling us that Obama would be different

Was that satire as well?

I am genuinely confused.

The point is no one actually knows......................

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 309 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.